Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 6

- B G

- 661
I N R E A NTOINI M. J ONES , R ESPONDENT
. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 428159 ) On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility Hearing Committee Number Seven Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline (BDN D 311

- 1 0 & D103

- 11 ) (Decided: August 25 , 201 6 ) Before B E C K

WITH and M C L EESE , Associate Judges , and F ARRELL , Senior Judge

. P ER C URIAM : This decision is non

- precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1 ( d) governing the appropriate citation of this opinion.

In this disciplinary ma tter, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility Hearing Committee Number Seven (“ the Committee ”) recommends approval of a revised p etition for negotiated attorney discipline

. The violations stem from res pondent Antoini M. Jones ’ s professional 8/ 25 /162

misconduct arising from his representation of two clients in two separate civil actions.

Respondent acknowledged that he failed to (1) provide competent representation ; (2) act with reasonable promptness ; and (3) communicate with his
clients , thereby violating Rule s 1.1 (a) & (b), 1.3 (c), and 1 .4 ( a ) of t he District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct

. T he Committee considered the following circumstances in mitigation: (1) respondent cooperated wit h Bar Counsel; (2) respondent took full responsibility and demonstrated remorse for his
actions ; (3) respondent’s family situation; and (4) one client’s personal conduct
affected respondent’s ability to represent that client

. The Committee also reviewed respondent’s four previous informal admonitions, two of which involved misconduct sounding in neglect. As a result, Disciplinary Counsel and respondent negotiate d the imposition of discipline in the form of a ninety

- day suspension , stayed , and one year of probation during which respondent must (1) meet with and obtain an assessment from the District of Columbia Bar’s Practice Management Advisory Service (“PMAS”) and comply with and implement any PMAS recommendation, including the supervision of a practice monitor; (2) not be found to have engaged in any additional ethical misconduct; and (3) complete his financial obligations to one complainant

. After reviewing the revised petition for3

negotiated discipline, considering a supporting affidavit and an unswo r n letter from one of the complainant s , and conducting a limited hearing, the Committee
concluded that the revised petition for negotiated discipline should be approved.

We a ccept the Committee ’s recommendation because the Committee properly applied D.C. Bar R. XI , § 12.1 (c) , and we find no error in the Committee ’s determination. Based upon the record before the court, the negotiated discipline of a ninety

- day suspension from the practice of law , stayed , and one year of probation wi th the conditions set forth above is not unduly lenient considering the existence of mitigating factors and the discipline imposed by this court for similar actions. 1

1 See In re Mance , 869 A.2d 339 , 341

- 43 (D.C. 2005) (per curiam) (imposing thirty

- day suspension , with suspension conditionally stayed during one

year period of unsupervised probation with requirement that attorney attend six hours of continuing legal education courses in legal ethics and law

- office managem ent, as disciplinary sanction for attorney’s neglect of client’s criminal appeal , where attorney had two prior informal admonitions ); In re Douglass , 859 A.2d 1069 , 1072

- 87 (D.C. 2004) (per curiam) (suspending for ninety days attorney who ha d two prior informal admonitions and presented no significant mitigating factors , whe re attorney failed to prepare or pursue client’s case and then attempted to prevent client from seeki ng refund of attorney’s fees after attorney no longer represented that client ); In re Drew , 693 A.2d 1127 , 1127

- 28 (D.C. 1997) (per curiam) ( imposing sixty

- day suspension on attorney who had three prior informal admonitions in sim ilar cases where attorney failed to note appeal for client following criminal conviction and fail ed to not e appeal or file motion to modify a sentence for another client ); In re Knox , 441 A.2d 265 , 266

- 68 (D.C. 1982) (continued...)4

In accordance with our procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, we
agree that t his case is appropriate for negotiated discipline, and we accept the Committee ’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Antoini M. Jones is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for ninety days , stayed in favor o f one year of probation during which respondent must (1) meet with and obtain an assessment from the District of Columbia Bar’s PMAS and comply with and implement any PMAS recommendation, including the supervision of a practice monitor; (2) not be
found to have engaged in any additional ethical misconduct; and (3) complete his financial obligations to one complainant.

So ordered.

(...continued) (imposing ninety

- day suspension after attorney failed to take any action before statute of limitations expired and did not communicate w ith client about decision not to pursue claim).